Give Red-Light Cameras A Shot

Running red lights is a serious problem. In 2010, according to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, 673 people were killed and an estimated 122,000 were injured in crashes in which police were able to establish that drivers ran red lights. That number is almost assuredly conservative.

Research by the institute and others indicates that motorists are more likely to obey traffic laws if they think are being watched and will get a ticket. Since there can't be a cop at every corner, red-light cameras can supplement police efforts, and do in more 500 communities across the country.

But not in Connecticut. Efforts to pass a bill in the General Assembly that would allow communities to use red-light cameras have come up short for several years, and aren't looking particularly strong this year, either.

The proposal incites a number of objections with varying degrees of credibility. It's hard to see how a camera on a public street would violate a right to privacy or would discriminate against minorities.

We don't buy the argument that cameras are just another government revenue program; they are primarily concerned with public safety. Revenue from New York City's program has fallen as Gotham drivers have gotten the message, and that was the goal, according to news reports.

On the other hand, there have been issues reported around the country with equipment, delays in sending tickets and at least one case — in Chicago — of alleged favor-buying by a vendor.

Yet if red-light cameras reduce serious accidents, as several studies indicate, it seems a shame to dismiss the idea without at least trying it. Why not let, say, New Haven try a pilot project with red-light cameras to see if the bugs can be worked out and the benefits outweigh the detriments?

New Haven has had people killed and injured by red-light runners, and has been a hotbed of support for the notion. Let the city run a program and see how it goes.